Senator WOODLEY (11:47 AM) —I will make a reasonably lengthy contribution now rather than speaking at every point because I think that will hopefully cover the rest of the debate. Let me begin by also placing on record my appreciation of the contribution of Senator Evans. Although the discussions were held between the government and us, he was aware of those and, as much as I could tell him—which was not much—I did try to keep him informed of what was happening.

Senator Kemp —We thought the discussions were confidential, Senator.

Senator WOODLEY —They were confidential in terms of any detail, Senator Kemp, but, in terms of the broad scope of what was happening, I kept Senator Evans informed, simply because he has been very responsible in all of the debates on this issue. I also want to commend him for keeping on the record the idea of a Senate inquiry into this issue, because I think that was one of the things that prompted the government to finally agree to an independent inquiry. That might have been a catalyst along the way, so that was helpful. Let me also say that on the part of the government I believe they have acted responsibly in agreeing to the propositions we put to them. Let me outline in brief some of the agreements that we reached with the government.

I suppose I am only reiterating what Senator Kemp said, but I did want to underline the fact that we convinced the government that the cap of $17,000 on charities should be increased to $30,000 and that they should extend the start-up date for that cap to 1 April 2001. As I have said, one of the most critical things in all of this was that the government agreed to institute an independent inquiry into the whole definition and tax treatment of charities. We have yet to agree on the terms of reference and on the people for that inquiry, but I can inform the government that we have been working on this and I believe we will have some words ready for them this week. I also add that, as part of that, there is a particular problem with indigenous communities and indigenous service bodies. This problem is to do with the fact that, because of the cuts in government funding over a period of time to indigenous organisations, they have used the fringe benefits tax concession more than anyone else—they have been forced to do so. For example, Aboriginal medical services are able to fund the provision of doctors up to about $70,000—which I think this chamber would understand is way below what a doctor would expect, particularly in a remote area—so they have often doubled that in terms of using the fringe benefits tax concession.

We need, as part of an inquiry, a particular emphasis on the needs of indigenous communities and indigenous organisations. The government has agreed that Dr Wooldridge and ATSIC will monitor that. I am not sure how that will be done, but I am also writing to Dr Wooldridge about some suggested terms of reference for that particular aspect of the inquiry. I have suggested to him that the Hall Chadwick study of Aboriginal medical services in the Northern Territory, which I believe was funded by the government, was a very good model that the government might be prepared to endorse for a wider overview of all indigenous organisations and that that would fulfil the agreement we have. In terms of the charity not-for-profit sector, the Democrats are very pleased that the government has agreed to the measures we brought before it and that these amendments will proceed to enable those measures to be put in place. My leader is going to cover the medical aspects, so I thank the chamber.